Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The study was conducted to compare the adhesion strength of glass-ceramic indirect restorations to tooth tissues after their fixation using light- and combined-curing composite materials, fifth- and sixth-generation adhesive systems. Laboratory studies were performed on sections of extracted human teeth in accordance with GOST R 59423-2021 (ISO 29022:2013). The shear strength test of the adhesive bond of an E-max sample to tooth enamel was performed on an UltraTester Bond Strength Testing Machine in three series of experiments using composite materials: Variolink Esthetic LC, Multilink N, Premise Flowable. In terms of adhesion strength, the fixing materials were distributed as follows: Premise Flowable flowable composite with photopolymerization (Mm=99.611.3 MPa); Variolink Esthetic LC with photopolymerization (Mm=96.413.8 MPa); Multilink N without photopolymerization (Mm=79.811.3 MPa). Studies of the strength of the "veneer - composite material - tooth enamel" connection using composite materials showed no differences between them (p=0,40252). In clinical situations of tooth tissue preparation within the enamel, a high degree of strength of the connection of indirect restorations made of E-max material with a tooth is predicted when using a light-curing composite, dual-curing composite, and flowable light-curing composite. To achieve effective fixation of indirect restorations, the main conditions are maximum preservation of enamel during tooth preparation; compliance with the technique of using the material outlined in the instructions; and rules for photopolymerization of the composite.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kiselyov et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: